Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 126 (RAJ)

Mukh Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2019-01-10

MANOJ KUMAR GARG, PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. The process of criminal law was set into motion when Lichhman Ram, PW-1 father of the deceased reached Police Station Sardarshahar and lodged a written report Ex.P-1 at 1.00 PM on 27.08.2009 informing that his daughter was married with the appellant. After marriage whenever she came to her parental house she would inform that she was being troubled by her husband and his parents for dowry. Today morning one Manphool Ram son of Phusaram informed him over the telephone that daughter's husband and her in-laws had murdered his daughter. In the company of 6-7 villagers he reached the residence of his daughter. He saw her dead body in the courtyard. The villagers informed him that his daughter had been murdered by her in-laws. 2. Based on the written information FIR Ex.P-2 for offences punishable under Section 498A/302 IPC was registered. 3. Investigation was taken over by Suresh Chandra PW-11, SHO of the Police Station. He reached the scene of the crime. Dead body was seized and was sent for post mortem. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Gupta PW-8 conducted the post mortem and authored the report Ex.P-10 recording therein that there was a contusion below the right eye; a contusion on the pinna of the right ear; a contusion on the right side of the forehead; and ligature marks around the neck. These were the external injuries. Internal examination revealed fracture of the thyroid cartilage. Cause of death was opined to be asphyxia due to strangulation. 4. Statements of PW-2 to PW-7 who had accompanied PW-1 to the residence of the deceased were recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statements of one Birbal and Ramlal were also recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 5. The appellant and his parents were arrested. The appellant got recovered a Gamchha which the prosecution claims was the ligature material. 6. Fsl report Ex.P-17 was obtained, as per which the blood of group 'B' was detected. The lehanga worn by the deceased also was detected with blood of the same group. 7. The appellant and his parents were sent for trial for offences punishable under Section 498A and 302 IPC. 8. Evidence led by the prosecution failed to establish presence of appellant's parents in the house when appellant's wife suffered a homicidal death. The testimony of PW1 to PW7 established appellant's presence in the house. 7. The appellant and his parents were sent for trial for offences punishable under Section 498A and 302 IPC. 8. Evidence led by the prosecution failed to establish presence of appellant's parents in the house when appellant's wife suffered a homicidal death. The testimony of PW1 to PW7 established appellant's presence in the house. The testimony of PW1 to the effect that the appellant demanded Rs. 20,000/- two times from him to purchase a tractor was opined to be not a dowry demand. 9. Vide impugned decision dated 11.10.2011 the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. His parents have been acquitted. Sentence imposed is to undergo imprisonment for life. The appellant and his parents have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. 10. Conviction is sustained on proof of the appellant being present in the house when his wife died and he rendering no explanation as to how his wife died. Extra-judicial confession deposed to through the mouth of PW1, PW4 and PW5. Recovery of Gamchha pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the appellant on which blood of the same group as that of the deceased was detected. 11. We have perused the testimony of PW1, PW4 and PW5 and find that as recorded in the written report Ex.P-1 when PW-1 went to the house of his daughter accompanied by 6-7 person, two of whom were PW4 and PW5, the appellant was in the house. The dead body of his wife was lying in the courtyard. The question as to how his wife died the appellant confessed to have strangulated her with a Gamchha. 12. Unfortunately for the appellant this part of the testimony of the witnesses has not been challenged through cross-examination. 13. On the issue of appellant's presence in the house and he rendering no satisfactory explanation as to how his wife died, counsel urges that from the testimony of the investigating officer PW-11 it emerges that Ramlal and Birbal were also present in the house when the deceased died. 14. Indeed, PW11, the investigating officer has admitted during cross-examination that investigation conducted by him revealed that Ramlal and Birbal were also present in the house. 15. The charge-sheet filed shows that both of them were cited as witnesses but unfortunately, were dropped by the prosecution. 16. 14. Indeed, PW11, the investigating officer has admitted during cross-examination that investigation conducted by him revealed that Ramlal and Birbal were also present in the house. 15. The charge-sheet filed shows that both of them were cited as witnesses but unfortunately, were dropped by the prosecution. 16. The statement of the two persons under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is to the effect that when the appellant saw his wife talking with Birbal he got infuriated and in anger strangulated his wife. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the onus of a husband to explain the death of his wife upon proof that the husband was present in the house is only when it is proved that the husband alone was in the house. Counsel states that as per the prosecution not only the husband but even Birbal and Ramlal were present in the house. 18. Now, it assumes importance to note that lapse by the prosecution to examine Birbal and Ramlal is being used by the appellant in the appeal, over-looking the fact that the death being homicidal and when the death took place the appellant, Ramlal and Birbal were present, if either Ramlal or Birbal have assaulted appellant's wife his conduct would have been to save his wife and not keep quiet. 19. It is settled law that if there is cogent evidence otherwise sustained the verdict of guilt lapses by the prosecution have to be over-looked. 20. Notwithstanding the case of the prosecution being that apart from the appellant, Ramlal and Birbal were present in the house when appellant's wife was strangulated and cited the two as witnesses, the two not being examined as witnesses, does not relieve the appellant with the obligation to explain the circumstances under which the wife was strangulated. 21. The post mortem report of the deceased and the testimony of Dr. Rajesh Kumar Gupta is to the effect that deceased was in menstruation when she was murdered. There from counsel argues that the presence of the blood of the deceased on the Gamchha can be attributed to she being in menstruation. 22. Even if we were to remove the incriminating evidence of Gamchha got recovered by the appellant being detected with a human blood of the same group as that of his wife, we have two stellar evidence to incriminate the appellant. 22. Even if we were to remove the incriminating evidence of Gamchha got recovered by the appellant being detected with a human blood of the same group as that of his wife, we have two stellar evidence to incriminate the appellant. The first is the extrajudicial confession made by the appellant who obviously would be questioned by his father-in-law and other people accompanying him to explain how his wife died. Being homicidal death and he being present in the house the appellant had no option but to confess his crime. 23. The second piece of evidence is the admitted presence of the appellant in the house albeit along with Birbal and Ramlal but the appellant does not claim that either of the two together murdered his wife. Had the two murdered appellant's wife in the presence of the appellant his conduct would have been to try and save his wife. 24. We find no merit in the appeal which is dismissed. Impugned judgment and sentence are affirmed.